خروج ٢٢:٧
تأمّل عميق بلغةٍ واضحة على هذه الآية. اقرأ الأصحاح
إِذَا أَعْطَى إِنْسَانٌ صَاحِبَهُ فِضَّةً أَوْ أَمْتِعَةً لِلْحِفْظِ، فَسُرِقَتْ مِنْ بَيْتِ الإِنْسَانِ، فَإِنْ وُجِدَ السَّارِقُ، يُعَوِّضُ بِاثْنَيْنِ.
التفاسير
مقتطفات جُمعت من تفاسير منشورة لترسيخ القراءة.
In cases of dishonesty, or the loss of property entrusted, the following was to be the recognised right: If money or articles (כּלים, not merely tools and furniture, but clothes and ornaments, cf. Deu 22:5; Isa 61:10) given to a neighbour to keep should be stolen out of his house, the thief was to restore double if he could be found; but if he could not be discovered, the master of the house was to go before the judicial court (האלהים אל, see Exo 21:6; אל נקרב to draw near to), to see "whether he has not stretched out his hand to his neighbour's goods." מלאכה: lit., employment, then something earned by employment, a possession. Before the judicial court he was to cleanse himself of the suspicion of having fraudulently appropriated what had been entrusted to him; and in most cases this could probably be only done by an oath of purification. The Sept. and Vulg. both point to this by interpolating καὶ ὀμεῖται, et jurabit ("and he shall swear"), though we are not warranted in supplying ויּשּׁבע in consequence. For, apart from the fact that אם־לא is not to be regarded as a particle of adjuration here, as Rosenmller supposes, since this particle signifies "truly" when employed in an oath, and therefore would make the declaration affirmative, whereas the oath was unquestionably to be taken as a release from the suspicion of fraudulent appropriation, and in case of confession an oath was not requisite at all; - apart from all this, if the lawgiver had intended to prescribe an oath for such a case, he would have introduced it here, just as he has done in Exo 22:11. If the man could free himself before the court from the suspicion of unfaithfulness, he would of course not have to make compensation for what was lost, but the owner would have to bear the damage. This legal proce…
افتح المصدر ↗These laws are, I. Concerning trusts, Exo 22:7-13. If a man deliver goods, suppose to a carrier to be conveyed, or to a warehouse-keeper to be preserved, or cattle to a farmer to be fed, upon a valuable consideration, and if a special confidence be reposed in the person they are lodged with, in case these goods be stolen or lost, perish or be damaged, if it appear that it was not by any fault of the trustee, the owner must stand to the loss, otherwise he that has been false to this trust must be compelled to make satisfaction. The trustee must aver his innocence upon oath before the judges, if the case was such as afforded no other proof, and they were to determine the matter according as it appeared. This teaches us, 1. That we ought to be very careful of every thing we are entrusted with, as careful of it, though it be another's, as if it were our own. It is unjust and base, and that which all the world cries shame on, to betray a trust. 2. That there is such a general failing of truth and justice upon earth as gives too much occasion to suspect men's honesty whenever it is their interest to be dishonest. 3. That an oath for confirmation is an end of strife, Heb 6:16. It is called an oath for the Lord (Exo 22:11), because to him the appeal is made, not only as to a witness of truth, but as to an avenger of wrong and falsehood. Those that had offered injury to their neighbour by doing any unjust thing, yet, it might be hoped, had not so far debauched their consciences as to profane an oath of the Lord, and call the God of truth to be witness to a lie: perjury is a sin which natural conscience startles at as much as any other. The religion of an oath is very ancient, and a plain indication of the universal belief of a God, and a providence, and a judgment to come. 4. Th…
افتح المصدر ↗الشواهد المتقابلة
مقاطع أخرى يربطها المجتمع بهذا المقطع أكثر من غيرها. انقر لتقرأها.
إِنْ وُجِدَتِ السَّرِقَةُ فِي يَدِهِ حَيَّةً، ثَوْرًا كَانَتْ أَمْ حِمَارًا أَمْ شَاةً، يُعَوِّضُ بِاثْنَيْنِ.
كَخِزْيِ السَّارِقِ إِذَا وُجِدَ هكَذَا خِزْيُ بَيْتِ إِسْرَائِيلَ، هُمْ وَمُلُوكُهُمْ وَرُؤَسَاؤُهُمْ وَكَهَنَتُهُمْ وَأَنْبِيَاؤُهُمْ،
وَلاَ سَارِقُونَ وَلاَ طَمَّاعُونَ وَلاَ سِكِّيرُونَ وَلاَ شَتَّامُونَ وَلاَ خَاطِفُونَ يَرِثُونَ مَلَكُوتَ اللهِ.
قَالَ هذَا لَيْسَ لأَنَّهُ كَانَ يُبَالِي بِالْفُقَرَاءِ، بَلْ لأَنَّهُ كَانَ سَارِقًا، وَكَانَ الصُّنْدُوقُ عِنْدَهُ، وَكَانَ يَحْمِلُ مَا يُلْقَى فِيهِ.